Back
1962 Supreme(Pat) 36
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Mohini Sugar Mills Ltd.
Versus
A.Hasan
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 873 of 1959 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1962
The order of retirement of workmen, which does not contravene the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not require the approval of the Industrial Tribunal and a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33(2) - RETIREMENT OF WORKMEN - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - STANDING ORDERS - RULES OF MANAGING AGENTS - APPLICABILITY - COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 33-A - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, managed by Messrs. Karamchand Thapar and Brothers (Private) Limited, retired respondents 2 to 9, its workmen, on completion of their 55th year of age, as per Rule 11(c) of the Rules of the Managing Agents. The workmen filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that the retirement order contravened the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the complaint and directed the reinstatement of the workmen.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Rules of the Managing Agents were applicable to the workmen, as they had agreed to be bound by them. The court further held that the order of retirement did not contravene the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act, as it did not amount to discharge or punishment and did not require the approval of the Industrial Tribunal. The court also held that the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act was not maintainable, as there was no contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rules of the Managing Agents were applicable to the workmen? 2. Whether the order of retirement contravened the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 3. Whether the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Rules of the Managing Agents were applicable to the workmen, as they had agreed to be bound by them. The court relied on the fact that the workmen had accepted the application of the Rules at the time of their appointments and that there was no evidence to suggest that the terms and conditions of employment in the petitioner company were different from those prescribed in the Rules. 2. The court held that the order of retirement did not contravene the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act, as it did not amount to discharge or punishment and did not require the approval of the Industrial Tribunal. The court relied on the fact that Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act, which deals with discharge or punishment, has no application to the present case, as retirement does not amount to discharge. 3. The court held that the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act was not maintainable, as there was no contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The court relied on the fact that the order of retirement did not contravene the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 23rd October, 1959.
Choudhary, J.
1. This is a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution" of India,
2. The petitioner is a public limited company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 , and having its registered office at 12, India Exchange Place, Calcutta. It carries on the business of manufacture of sugar from sugar cane at its factory situated at Warsaliganj in the district of Gaya. Its Managing Agents are Messrs. Karamchand Thapar and Brothers (Private) Limbed. Respondents 2 to 9 were workmen employed in the petitioner company. They along with ten other workmen were made to retire, and their case was taken up by the Mohini Sugar Mills Workers Union (hereinafter to he referred as the Union) as a result of which the Government of Bihar, in the Department of Labour under Notification No. III/D1-805/57-L-16876, dated the 19th September, 1957, referred the question of the justifiability or otherwise of the retirement of these 19 workmen, along with one other matter, to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Patna for adjudication. The above notification gave rise to Reference No. 3/L.C. of 1957 before the said Labour Court.
It appears that an agreement was arrived at between the parties on the 14th of August, 1957, with regard to the question of the justifiability or otherwise of the retirement of the workmen, according to which as alleged by the petitioner company in its written statement, a copy of which is annexure F to the writ application, it was agreed that the law would take its own course and in case any retired person felt aggrieved on the question of age, it could be examined at the level of Works Committee, and if no decision was arrived at then the opinion of the Civil Surgeon would be binding, and that the first preference for fresh appointment would be given to the song of the retired workmen. Accordingly the president of the Union filed a petition on the 9th of June, 1958, before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna enclosing an extract from the above agreement, and prayed, that in view of the Mutual agreement arrived at between the parties in regard to the question of retirement, that item would not be pressed. There was a further agreement between the parties on the 16th of November, 1958, under the terms of which the remaining retired workers out of those 19 who had not produced certificates in time were to be taken back from the season 1958-59 without any payment for the period they had not worked. Accordingly, another application was filed by the President of the Union on the 2nd of December 1958, in which it was prayed that the terms of the above agreement be incorporated in the award. The Labour Court, therefore, in its award dated the 30th of December, 1958, acceped the position with regard to the question of justifiability or otherwise of the retirement, as stated in the petitions filed on behalf of the president of the Union, and the award was given in terms of the agreements.
3. Before the above award was made, however, the Government of Bihar by another notification, No. III/D1.-804/58-L-21679, dated the 23rd of December, 1958, referred certain, matters to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar for adjudication, which gave rise to Reference no. 18 of 1959. During the pendency of that reference, the management of the petitioner company passed an order on the 19th of March, 1959, as a result of which respondents 2 to 9 were made to retire with effect from the, date of the closure of the crushing season 1958-59- A copy of the above order is Annexure D to the writ application. The General Secretary of the union, Sri Ram Narain Pandey, claiming to have been authorised by the said respondents, filed an application purporting to be under Sec.33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, praying for reinstatement of those respondents. This application gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 87 of 1959. On receipt of notice from the Industrial Tribunal about the said application, the management of
